Lucky Brand Dungarees, Inc v. MarcelFashions Group, Inc., Case No. 18–1086 (2020).
“Defense preclusion” is not a recognized defense as the two acceptable doctrines are issue preclusion (a party is barred from relitigating an issue actually decided in a prior action that was necessary to the judgment; commonly called collateral estoppel) and claim preclusion (a party is barred from raising claims thatcould have been raised and decided in a prior action; commonly called res judicata); suitsinvolve the same claim or “cause of action” when they“‘aris[e] from the same transaction’” or involve a “common nucleus of operative facts.”
Harbourside Place, LLC v. Town Of Jupiter, Florida, Case No. 18-12457 (11th Cir. 2020).
Governmental noise ordinances, including those imposed on businesses, generally do not violate the FirstAmendment if they are content-neutral and do not single out any specific type ofspeech, subject-matter, or message.
Decks N Such Marine, Inc. v. Daake, Case No. 1D18-1396 (Fla. 1st DCA 2020).
Junior interest holderswho prevail in construction lienenforcement and foreclosure actions may not recover attorney’s feesunder Florida Statute section 713.29.
Scott v. Strategic Realty Fund, Case No. 2D18-3839 (Fla. 2d DCA 2020).
A backdated assignment is capable of two inferences, i.e., documenting an already completed transaction or backdating an event to a party’s benefit, and as a result, typically does not support entry of summary judgment.
Weisman v. Southern Wine & Spirits Of America, Inc., Case No. 4D17-3734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2020).
The Personal Stake Exception to the IntracorporateConspiracy Doctrine Defense to claims of interference with business relationships requires that the corporate agents be solely motivated by personal basis.